Results 11,001-11,020 of 11,433 for speaker:Michael Kitt

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: Not that I am aware of.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Report and Final Stages. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This arose from earlier discussion.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Report and Final Stages. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: We touched on this earlier, and at the time I stated one of our concerns would be that the law would become dispersed if we introduced this. I must oppose it. This area is developing. Mr. Justice Costello considered Dáil debates in the case of Wavin Pipes Limited v. Hepworth Iron Limited, and the courts in England took account of parliamentary debates in Pepper v. Hart. Debates of the House...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Report and Final Stages. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: I will do that.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Report and Final Stages. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: I will examine the amendment if it is possible to do so under the rules and procedures. Perhaps Senators know if it is possible from their experience of other legislation.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Report and Final Stages. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: If the rules allow me to do so I will have to insert that provision——

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Report and Final Stages. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: A number of issues have been raised of which we should take note in the context of better regulation and legislation, and we will do that.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Report and Final Stages. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: I will conclude by again thanking the Senators for their sensible suggestion about the fixed timetable and for being flexible in passing the Bill. We were trying to ensure the speedy passage of the Bill through this House and the other House, although I have some work to do to get it moving in the other House.The Senators made some very useful suggestions. I did not expect such a...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Report and Final Stages. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: ——and copyright, although I hope we left our mark on that also. I thank the Senators.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: The language is taken straight from the Law Reform Commission report to take into account changing circumstances.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: My advice is that this is provided for in the Constitution, a point which may have been raised before when this House debated the Bill. In effect, the amendment paraphrases the Constitution. It is inappropriate to attempt to provide for something which is expressly covered by the Constitution or by the constitution of the Irish Free State. There is no need for this amendment. The Constitution...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: I appreciate what the Senator is attempting to do but it is ultimately for the courts to interpret the Constitution, not the Oireachtas.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: My advice is not to pursue it, Senator.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: Yes.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: These are technical amendments to shorten, clarify or simplify the section.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: Government amendment No.16: In page 7, subsection (1)(a), line 29, after "Oireachtas," to delete "in".

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: This is also to shorten, clarify or simplify the section.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: The courts examine Oireachtas debates but the danger of stipulating that they should do so is that it would make the law more imprecise. I hope that clarifies the legal position.

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: I have nothing to add. Nothing prevents the Judiciary from reading reports of the Oireachtas debates. I agree with the Senator that a great deal of sense is talked in both Houses. I am not the only Minister who believes this House has done more than its fair share of work on legislation. I agree it is important to have reports of the debates so that the courts can read them but the Senator...

Seanad: Interpretation Bill 2000: Committee Stage. (29 Jun 2005)

Michael Kitt: The section was inserted on the basis of the Law Reform Commission report and it permits the courts to take into account, for example, scientific developments and developments in social conditions and technology since legislation was enacted. That is an example of the reference to relevant matters and the courts may taken into account developments of that nature.